Keith Whaley wrote:
Fred wrote:
I concur. The "SMC PENTAX-A 70-210/4" has been a very sharp and good performer overall for me. I've not purchased the 80-200 2.8 because this lens is so good that its hard to justify the expense and size for just one more stop and probably marginal sharpness improvement.
I'm quite happy with the A 70-210/4, and I've never been able to justify a jen-you-wine Pentax 80-200/2.8 (although, if price were no object, then justification would come quite easily - <g>).
Have you any idea how the Pentax-A 70-200mm f/4.0 compares? Only a silly 10mm shorter! Who'd know? <g>
I didn't know there was a "A 70-200/4". There is only the FA 70-200/4-5.6 in Boz's site.
keith whaley
However, I've been quite pleased with the ol' manual focus Tokina AT-X 80-200/2.8, and have used it quite a bit when the extra speed justified lugging it around instead of the 70-210/4 (and the extra speed also justified the "pinching" of the zoom range - although most of us usually tend to think of a 80-200 zoom as being about the same as an 70-210 zoom for range, a 2.5-to-1 zoom range is ~not~ the same as a 3-to-1 zoom range). No, it's not SMC, but it is (in telescope terms) a pretty good "light bucket".
Recently I've also gotten hold of a Tokina AT-X "PRO" (<g>) 80-200/2.8 autofocus lens (which is optically ~not~ the same as the manual focus version), but I haven't had a chance to use it much yet. Does anyone have any comments to offer on this critter, either in comparison to the manual focus AT-X, or to Pentax glass?
Fred
